Template talk:InfoboxSoftware

In the event that the sub-pages for init8ial release/date do not exist, I think it should fall back to the old behaviour of the "released" label. As it stands, if you look at e.g. https://doomwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Doom&oldid=159942, the initial date is missing because it ignores those labels.

In fact why parameterize the initial release/version by sub-page anyway? It's a static piece of info, once known it isn't going to change. This is over-engineered for that field IMHO. -- Shambler (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2018 (CST)


 * Very good point. I think I could fix the markup, but better to avoid the overhead altogether, especially since this is a topic known to attract non-regular editors.    Ryan W (living fossil) 08:09, 24 February 2018 (CST)
 * I believe the only reason the initial data/version were put on subpages was to copy-paste what was done for the latest date and version without thinking about why these fields were externalized in the first place (keeping separate pages, such as the source port's own page and the "comparison" table page, in sync). I agree that static data should not be subject to the same maintenance issue as they should remain in sync by virtue of never changing. --Gez (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2018 (CST)

This template has been revised. I will wait for links to update before removing the orphaned article subpages. Anyone is free to check for information "bleeding" from the previous documentation draft here, as well as HTML comments in the port skeleton template. Ryan W (living fossil) 21:58, 18 March 2018 (CDT)

Forgot to say: the initial version dates/numbers will temporarily become blank in the main port article for all ports. Ryan W (living fossil) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (CDT)

Renaming perhaps?
This template has become almost universal for any software, not just source ports. However, its name is misleading. Shouldn't we rename it to something like InfoboxSoftware? I understand the amount of work to fix all the inclusions, but if this is not done, then it may be worth at least making the appropriate explanations in the template description. --Nockson (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2023 (CDT)
 * When you started using the template for non-ports, I was first wondering why, then why not. It does seem to fit a wider range of software indeed, and was in fact derived from Wikipedia's infobox software template. Which makes me wonder why it was aimed specifically at ports here. Does anyone who was around back then remember? Gez, Quasar?
 * I cannot think of a strong argument not to use it more widely, and thus against renaming it accordingly to InfoboxSoftware. Some parameter descriptions will then need tweaking. Updating existing usage is easily handled via pregreplGen.php, btw. --Xymph (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2023 (CDT)
 * It wasn't my idea, I first saw it on Doom Editing Utilities page, and the edit to include template was checked by Quasar. --Nockson (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2023 (CDT)
 * Ah, its previous usage for tools had sunken under my radar. I briefly quizzed Quasar on #doomwiki, who doesn't remember the template's origins, and is okay with renaming. So, here goes. --Xymph (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2023 (CDT)